WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of gay people in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex."

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

The law "demeans the lives of homosexual persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

I am not a lawyer, but I respectfully disagree. The right not to be searched unreasonably, I do not believe, necessarily amounts to right of privacy, particularly with how it is being used (abortion, gay sex). I don't like the government butting into the home, but on the other hand I believe a nation, state, or community has the right to set limits on its citizenry. The supremes are saying that we no longer can.

While in general I prefer to keep the government out of the bedroom, I can't help but wonder which lifestyle will next be validated by the USSC--you know the gay groups are also lobbying in favor of sex with children: will that become just another lifestyle that would be "demeaned" by laws against it?

I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly". If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. And, just like Justice Stewart, I can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, "the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions."

"It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law."

Uh oh. Kennedy's Opinion of the Court quotes and reaffirms the mysterious passage in Casey:

These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State.

Upholding laws that existed from the start of the country should have been a no-brainer. Like the laws or not, they were supported by the Founders and the original 13 states. To claim they are unconstitutional is absurd.

I wish "right to privacy" meant the homosexual's had to keep their sex lives PRIVATE FROM THE REST OF US!!!

Exactly.

If this had ever been a privacy issue the SC would never have been involved. If the men in question had simply covered themselves when the police knocked on the door and called out that there was no problem, there would have been no arrest.

The whole case was staged to become a public sex act (before the eyes of the police officers) to generate publicity, then redirected as a privacy argument.

Homosexuals would have no problem in this society if they would just stay in the closet. Presidents used to be able to have all the sex with interns they wanted until X42 tried to make it a front page issue.

Shalom.

59
posted on 06/26/2003 8:15:22 AM PDT
by ArGee
(I did not come through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man... - Gandalf)

Just take the consent law away. It appears to be as easy as the stroke of the pen.

I briefly scanned the majority opinion and will need to read it thoroughly but it is hard to spot what prior case evidence was used to support the opinion. Seems this court turns its back on thousands of years of jurisprudence.

Sounds about right. Sodomy laws are pointlessly unenforcable in the first place. Anything that takes the federal government out of our private lives is fine by me.

Sounds good to me. And no, I am not a homo-loving libertine. I hate their political agenda and oppose it where I can. I am not much in favor of their social agenda either. But I cannot support the government banning behaviour between consenting adults. And yes, add in all the loony consenting behaviour that you will ("oh yeah? Well what about people who want to stick breadsticks in each others eyes to pop their eyeballs out, what about that? Huh? HUH?"), I'd say people have a right to it.

What bothers me is the next step...Legalizing Homosexual Marriage...I support right to privacy...I wish homosexual would stop sticking their life style up and personal in my face and demanding I accept it as normal...

I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly". If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

I am impressed! He basically agrees with me, and probably not with many (most?) freepers in that he would never have such a law in the first place. However, he cannot find a "right to privacy" in the constitution, so he feels he must dissent... I respect this guy more and more. I know many liberals accuse him of just being Scalia's house-n*gger..

In the following paragraph, Kennedy attempts to limit the effect of the ruling. The paragraph is noticeably lacking in argument justifying the limitations made:

The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are attracted to relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons may seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

Why should God treat this nation any different than Soddom & Gomorrah? It won't be long before judgement comes upon this once great nation and we end up on the ash heap the same as Babylon, Soddom & Gomorrah, Greece and Rome. We will be no different. The bright "Day" is coming to and end and very dark "night" is closing in on the United States of America. Only a total repentence and revival could save us now and that would take a miracle.

An un-named well-known person, after a retreat of fasting and prayer said that he received a declaration from the Lord Himself who told him "that within 6 years it is going to seem that wickedness and evil have triummphed and completely taken over."

I believe him and we can even now see many of the elements coming together to to make it true.

77
posted on 06/26/2003 8:25:54 AM PDT
by KriegerGeist
("The weapons of our warefare are not carnal, but mighty though God for pulling down of strongholds")

"In through the out door" -- hilarious! Yes, heterosexual couples do this as well -- I thought the court would strike down only laws where heterosexual and homosexual couples were treated differently in this regard (e.g., sodomy is legal for heterosexuals, but illegal for homosexuals), based on equal protection.

Although I personally don't think government should spend time/resources regulating consensual activities behind closed doors, Constitutionally this should probably be a state issue (again, as long as it doesn't violate equal protection -- if sodomy is illegal, it should be illegal for all).

Fools both. Read Scalia's dissent; read Kennedy's decision. Your comments show that do not understand the stakes of the game being played. This is not a libertarian decision--it is a pro-homosexual, pro-Leftist agenda decision. And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children.

". The right not to be searched unreasonably, I do not believe, necessarily amounts to right of privacy, particularly with how it is being used (abortion, gay sex). I don't like the government butting into the home, but on the other hand I believe a nation, state, or community has the right to set limits on its citizenry. The supremes are saying that we no longer can."

The right is the people's right to keep things hidden and out of view. That's why it's infringement by the government was so restricted to probable cause and the testimony of witness. The unreasonableness refers to the infringement of the right, not the right itself.

The supremes don't really honor that right and neither does the government. It's the subject of the search that determines whether, or not, the right to privacy will be honored. In the case of abortion, the Supremes have said it can be done, because the it's a private matter. Yet, if someone pisses me off and I hire a killer to cut him up in small pieces and feed him to the fishes(all a private matter), the Supremes won't give me the time of day. Also they won't dump a gun registration and ballistic finger print on that ground and the 5th Amend. They pick and choose to order the world to their vision, that's it.

No, that was one of the main issues: in Texas sodomy was legal between a man and a woman, but illegal between two people of the same sex. However, the court seemingly did not overturn the law on this equal protection basis.

I'm reading Scalia's dissent now. He makes a powerful case that Roe v. Wade is as worthy of being overruled as Bowers v. Hardwick. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic if this decision, Lawrence v. Texas, were used as the basis for overruling Roe in a few years? (The leftists and their allies on the Supreme Court have proved perfectly willing in this Lawrence case to use the stare decisis centrist opinion in Casey -- which was based on the unwillingness to overrule precedent -- to overrule Bowers.)

"And when they're done inventing a constitutional right to homosexual marriage, they'll move against other "antiquated" rules on sexual matters, like those barring sexual congress with your children." 'Sexual congress' with children is considered rape, and rightfully so. Statutory rape, beastiality, and homosexuality are completely different, because the latter occurs with adult consent, and the last two, by definition, cannot.

What bothers me is the next step...Legalizing Homosexual Marriage...I support right to privacy...I wish homosexual would stop sticking their life style up and personal in my face and demanding I accept it as normal...

Homosexual "marriage" is not logical, unless marriage is to be redefined as "a relationship between two or more entities".

I don't want it in my face either. The reason I get along so well with my gay neighbors is they keep it in the house where it belongs.

Upholding laws that existed from the start of the country should have been a no-brainer. Like the laws or not, they were supported by the Founders and the original 13 states. To claim they are unconstitutional is absurd.Yeah. It was a real bummer when slavery was done away with.

Well until today they couldn't legally consent to committing sodomy either could they?

I don't think the Texas homosexual sodomy issue was a matter of legal consent, but instead a matter of an overall illegal act. That to me is different from sex with a minor -- because a minor can't enter into contracts or legally consent to anything (nore can an animal, by the way). In the first case, it was consensual, but not legal. In the latter, it is illegal and also by definition non-consensual.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on necrophiliac sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The 6-3 ruling takes its impetus from a ruling in 2003 that states could not punish persons for what such laws historically called deviant sex.

The case is a major reexamination of the rights and acceptance of necrophiliacs in the United States. More broadly, it also tests a state's ability to classify as a crime what goes on behind the closed bedroom doors of consenting adults, whether living or dead.

Thursday's ruling invalidated a Texas law against "deviate sexual intercourse with a deceased individual."

Defending that law, Texas officials said that it promoted the institutions of marriage and family, and argued that communities have the right to choose their own standards.

The law "demeans the lives of necrophiliac persons," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.